/^ 



135 
P"^ 1 



AN UNOFFICIAL INTER- 
PRETATION OF THE WAR 
AIMS OF THE UNITED 

STATES. 

By Burt Etheridge Barlow. 



AN UNOFFICIAL INTERPRETATION 

OF THE WAR AIMS OF THE UNITED 
STATES 



By BURT ETHERIDGE BARLOW 

II 



> >'i 




I 



B»2 IT 



f / < t 






THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL PRINCIPLE. 

The development of ideas of government goes forward very 
slowly. And so with our country, the seed was planted when the 
oppressed peoples of Europe sought our shores to find freedom of 
religious thought and escape from political tyranny. Being left 
to themselves their government became for themselves and, in the 
course of a hundred years, what at first was permissive had be- 
come in their eyes an absolute right. When, therefore, they be- 
came rich enough to invite exploitation, their ideas as to freedom 
of government were so thoroughly fixed as to cause resistance. 

The declaration of independence can hardly be called the 
work of one man or a number of men, so far as the ideas expressed 
are concerned, but is rather a most able statement of the com- 
monly accepted ideas of the people of the colonies. 

They, the people, believed that all men were created equal; 
that governments derive their just powers from the consent of 
the governed, but they made no further application of this prin- 
ciple than to themselves. The benefits of their government in 
contrast to the evils of autocratic government were so apparent 
that after the expiration of 47 years, the people of our country had 
reached the point where they believed that the New World should 
be held open for the development of free institutions, and so the 



president of the United States declared the Monroe Doctrine. 
From a purely individual application of the theories of govern- 
ment expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the United 
States had now come to the point where those ideas were in part 
to be applied to the American Continents. The effects of this new 
principle were far reaching and changed the destiny of two con- 
tinents, perhaps of the world. The direct result of this new 
theory is that the Americas are now almost without exception 
democratic as to government. This new application of our theories 
of government was put to the test time and again and more than 
once we were on the verge of war, because we insisted on its en- 
forcement. 

In the meantime a new method of applying the former 
theory had been developing in the minds of the American people. 
They were preparing for another step forward, as radical in prin- 
ple as the preceding step. Three quarters of a century were 
necessary to effect the change and in 1898, at the insistance of the 
American people, not in advance of them, our country went to the 
assistance of the Cuban insurgents and, after effecting their free- 
dom from Spain, assumed control of the Island for the purpose 
of enabling the Cubans to establish democratic government and 
later turned over to the duly constituted Cuban authorities the 
government of the Island and voluntarily withdrew. 

Our government had changed in its attitude towards foreign 
governments; heretofore it had been passive. It had taken the 
stand that each country should work out its own destiny, that our 
country would not interfere unless some foreign power intervened. 
But now a new principle was established — namely, that when in- 
tervention was necessary for the establishment of democratic 



government, then our country would intervene and when demo- 
cratic government was firmly established, we would withdraw. 

The History of all the great powers of Europe shows conquest 
as their aim; not assistance to weaker states. No such attitude 
as ours had heretofore been taken in the history of the world by 
any nation. This departure marked the beginning of a new epoch. 

This was followed by our direct intervention in Santo Domin- 
go, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Haiti. Along with our policy of direct 
intervention, there had been developed a further policy— namely, 
that weaker nations should not be exploited by stronger nations; 
that claims presented against a weaker nation should be liquidated 
at fair values; that concessions unjustly obtained from a weaker 
country could be cancelled. All this was new in world pohtics, 
where selfishness, trickery and imposition had always heretofore 
been present. It is, however, the logical development of the basic 
theories of our government. President Wilson's Mobile address 
but reflected the sentiments of our people. 

The policy of our government may now be said to be one of 
intervention whenever the interest of our own country or the in- 
terests of the foreign country demand it; but our intervention is 
not for conquest but to enable the foreign people to govern them- 
selves under democratic forms. 



n. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE DEVELOPED 

PRINCIPLE. 

The various acts of the German government, which have shown 
its unfriendly attitude towards the United States, are still fresh 
in the memory of all Americans and need no review. 

That a victorious Germany would put restraints upon our 
country which would infringe on our liberty is an irresistible con- 
clusion. 

When, therefore, the victory of the Allies became doubtful 
and their defeat seemed possible, unless further assistance was 
rendered, the entrance of the United States into the war became 
necessary, not only for our own protection, but for the protection of 
Democratic principles throughout the world — using the words of 
President Wilson, "The world must be made safe for democracy." 

Democratic principles must become operative in Germany, 
Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. 

The governments of these countries may themselves take 
action and give to their peoples representative government. Many 
recent events, particularly in Germany and Austria, point in this 
direction. When the German Emperor realizes that the interests 
of the German people can now best be provided for by govern- 
ment democratic in form, it is not beyond possibility that he 



will lead in this reform as he has led in the reforms that made 
the German nation, socially and industrially, what it was in 1914. 
German action along this line would be an almost compelling ex- 
ample to her allies. Moreover, the hand writing is on the wall 
and if the governing bodies do not act, the people will. 

The allied governments have not as yet announced this as one 
of their war aims, but the following statement by Lloyd George 
shows that this purpose is present, though not fully formed — 
speaking of peace conditions at Glasgow, June 29, 1917, he said: 

"They (peace conditions) must be guaranteed by the destruc- 
tion of the Prussian military power, that the confidence of the Ger- 
man people shall be in the equity of their cause and not in the might 
of their arms. May I say that a better guarantee than either 
would have been the democratization of the German Government. 
One of the outstanding features of the war has been the reluctance 
with which democratic countries have entered it." **** 

"No one wishes to dictate to the German people the form of 
government under which they choose to live. That is a matter 
entirely for themselves, but it is right we should say we could 
enter into negotiations with a free Government in Germany with 
a different attitude of mind, a different spirit, with less suspicion, 
with more confidence than we could with a Government whom we 
knew to be dominated by the aggressive and arrogant spirit of 
Prussian Militarism. And the Allied governments would, in my 
judgment, be acting wisely if they drew that distinction in their 
general attitude in a discussion of the terms of peace." 

One of our war aims is clear. Germany, Austria-Hungary, 
Bulgaria and Turkey must become democracies in fact. The form 
may be a democracy such as France, or a constitutional monarchy, 
such as England, but democracies they must be. 

Another step has been taken in the application of our prin- 



ciples of equality and self-government from active intervention in 
the Americas we have passed to active intervention in the vrorld. 

The step is fraught vv^ith untold complications and great 
dangers. A study of v^rorld conditions shows that the applica- 
tion of our principles of equality will conflict with the former aims 
and objects of those who are at present fighting against Germany. 



III. 

THE FURTHER APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE. 

What have been, and were in 1914, the aims of England, 
France, Italy, Portugal and Russia in regard to colonial expan- 
sion ? 

Russian expansion was for but one purpose, namely, the 
acquiring of new areas and new peoples which could be laid under 
the autocratic rule of the Czar and exploited by him and those 
surrounding him. The interests of the peoples so conquered 
were not considered and there was no pretense that government 
with the consent of the governed would follow. 

With the change in the Russian Government, if it is perma- 
nent, autocratic rule will be abolished and it may be taken for 
granted that the New Government will advocate government with 
the consent of the governed, not only in Russia, but also in all 
other countries, regardless of nationality or creed. 

Italian expansion has had in view purely commercial motives 
and this policy has been carried out without consideration for the 
interests of the peoples over whom she has assumed control. 

Commercial interest has been the reason for French expan- 
sion, though during a part of her period of colonization she has 
been a democracy, no steps worthy of notice have been taken to 
prepare her subject peoples for self-government They are ruled 



without their consent, for the benefit of the commercial interests 
of Prance. Neither education nor self-government has followed 
her flag. 

In Portugal, the early idea of exploitation as exemplified by 
the trade in African slaves has not been changed in principle, 
though the slave trade has been nearly, if not entirely, stopped — 
her subject races receive no consideration. 

English expansion has had in view only the financial gain to 
be derived from the peoples made subject to her rule. In the 
words of Sir Sidney Oliver, K. C. M. G., Governor of Jamaica: 

"Every nation having colonies or external dependencies 
acquires and holds them for the sake of benefits to its own citizens, 
whether as settlers, traders, or investors of capital in those ter- 
ritories, and in so far as the sovereign nation orders the govern- 
ment of its colonies and dependencies, the dominant guiding factor 
in its policy will be the promotion of those ends. The policy of 
the Government in regard to native races is secondary and sub- 
sidiary. The exceptions to this rule are extremely few and such 
as must be considered to have been in the nature of accidents in 
the history of colonization." — Inter Racial Problems, G. Spiller, 
page 293. 

She assumes no duty other than military, towards the native 
populations which she forces under her rule. Her policy in this 
regard is well stated in the article referred to, page 296-7, as fol- 
lows: — 

"Most of these dependencies have been acquired and their 
government organized for the purpose of trade, and not with a 
view to the European colonists themselves becoming workers or 
employers of labour in agriculture. Nor has the colonising 
country imported or created the population, as it has in the older 
colonies. The colonists come there to preserve their economic 

10 



interests in such manner as may involve them in the least possible 
complications with the natives. 

Where they live, as in seacoast settlements and towns, in 
close contact with the natives, they are bound for the sake of their 
own convenience and health to interfere to a certain extent with 
the native customs and manners of life, and, for example, to 
establish municipal governments for sanitary purposes with more 
or less administrative control vested in the hands of the governing 
power. But beyond this there is less and less disposition to in- 
terfere with the native life and activity, and more and more to 
confine the energy of government to the departments of military 
and police protection, to the improvement of roads and other 
means of communication, and to the education of technical capacity. 
There is less and less tendency to regard the colonizing country 
as being under any religious obligation to interfere with polygamy, 
or other such native customs repugnant to British standards of 
civilization and morality, and there is more and more a tendency 
to maintain and reinforce the authority of the local institutions of 
Government and Justice." 

There can be no progress towards self-government, unless 
the people of a country are educated. An illiterate man can neither 
understand the problems of government, nor intelligently express 
them. 

England's rule has not been that of enlightenment, or educa- 
tion; her control of subject nationalities keeps them in dense 
ignorance and so renders a continuance of her rule certain. 

England has had the direction of India since 1858. 80% of 
India's population of over 300,000,000 can neither read nor write. 

In Japan, which was discovered to western Europe, at the 
time England assumed control of India, over 5,000,000 pupils are 
now enrolled in the schools. In India, with a population 6 times 
as great, there are less than 2,500,000 now enrolled. 

11 



In Egypt, at the present time, where England has had control 
since 1882, 93% of the people can neither read nor write. 

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The South African Union 
are not examples of English colonial rule; the peoples of these 
democracies are not alien races but mostly Englishmen. The 
English rule of alien races is a different story to which there are 
no exceptions. 

WHAT IS HERE SAID OP ENGLAND CAN EQUALLY BE 
SAID OP ALL GREAT POWERS OP EUROPE; it is the system, 
not the nationality, that is wrong. 

When no moral responsibility was assumed with the acquisi- 
tion of new territory; when the right to exclude other peoples 
from the subjected territory was recognized; when the right to 
expropriate the valuable mineral and timber rights of the con- 
quered people was admitted; then a race for plunder commenced 
which has hardly been equaled in the history of the world. Nation- 
al cupidity stopped at nothing except national fear. 

Lest the foregoing be considered overdrawn, the following 
quotations are submitted to the candid reader. 

In 1915, Gilbert Murray, wrote a defense of British Poreign 
Policy entitled, "The Poreign Policy of Sir Edward Gray, 1906- 
1915." This work was subsequently distributed by the British 
government. What is written in this book, relative to foreign 
policies, should be authoritative as to the British government at 
least. On page 41 and 42 and 46 thereof appears the following: 

"To the eye of a thorough-going Liberal there is something 
sordid and even odious about the ordinary processes of Poreign 
Pohcy. There is a constant suspicion of intrigue, a constant 
assertion of 'interests,' a dangerous familiarity with thoughts of 

12 



force or fraud, and a habit of using silken phrases as a cover for 
very brutal facts. In Home Politics you are working, in ideal at 
any rate, with a band of friends, bound to each other by the ties 
of common language and history, by neighbourhood and habits 
and common interests, or at least, where these fail, by the law and 
the knowledge in each man's mindthat if he maltreats his neighbour 
he will be made to suffer for it. This ideal is of course, not fully 
realized — far from it — but it is present as a ground work. And 
normally all good Germans, all good Englishmen, all good French- 
men, are in their Home Politics mainly working at redressing in- 
justices, improving social conditions, helping the unfortunate and, 
generally strengthening or raising the standard of national life. 
But Foreign Politics are the relations between so many bands of 
outlaws. There are seldom any strong ties between the parties, 
either of language or history or neighbourhood or habits; very 
often there are traditions of positive hostility and mutual dislike. 
But the cardinal trouble is that, in their relations to one another, 
the nations have no firm and definite law to control them, or at 
least no power capable of executing the law. 

When I say 'outlaws,' of course I do not mean criminals. 
These outlaws are by nature just as honest and honourable as 
other men; they make treaties with one another and mostly keep 
them, they pledge their word and generally abide by it. But if 
they do not, there is nobody to mais:e them. If one wrongs his 
neighbour, there is generally no one but that neighbour to make 
him suffer for it; if his neighbour wrongs him, he has no protection 
except his own knife and gun. 

If we add to this absence of a common effective law the fact 
that each nation is normally sensitive only to its own public opin- 
ion and quite callous towards opinions expressed by foreign per- 
sons in foreign languages, and the further fact that to the average 
individual in each nation the serving of his country's national in- 
terests seems a devoted and unselfish ideal, in pursuit of which 
a little irregularity here and there may well be forgiven, we begin 
to understand the curious mental atmosphere, rather like of so 
many mediaeval barons under an absentee king, in which our in- 

13 



ternational diplomats have to move. There is fear in the air, and 
it is fear that makes men he. It also makes them polite." * * * * 

"The dealings of the outlav^'s market may be very far from 
perfect; they may constantly shock your aspirations after Broth- 
erhood and often outrage your sense of Public Right, but, unless 
you v^^ish to return to brigandage pure and simple, you must 
study the ways of the market and make the best of it." 

In reply thereto Bertrand Russell, a titled and educated Eng- 
glishman, v^rrote "Justice in War Time." The preceding state- 
ment appears in clearer form on page 136-137 as follows: 

"Stripped of parlimentary verbiage, the fundamental fact 
about the European situation is that all the Great Powers of Europe 
have precisely the same objects: territory, trade and prestige. In 
pursuit of these objects no one of the Great Powers shrinks from 
wanton aggression, war and chicanery. But owing to the geo- 
graphical position of Germany and our naval supremacy, England 
can achieve all its purposes by wars outside Europe, whereas 
English and Russian policy has shown that Germany cannot 
achieve its aims except by a European war. We have made small 
wars because small wars were what suited our purpose; Germany 
has made a great war because a great war was what suited 
Germany's purpose. We and they alike have been immoral in 
aim and brutal in method, each in the exact degree which was 
thought to be to the national advantage. If either they or we had 
had loftier aims or less brutal methods; the war might have been 
avoided." 

In 1911, upon the recommendation of the Department of 
State of the United States, at the request of the Persian Govern- 
ment, W. Morgan Shuster went to Persia to rehabilitate the Per- 
sian Treasury. The foreign policy of England and Russia in Per- 
sia was, necessarily, a subject of his study. The following appear- 
ing in the foreword of "The Strangling of Persia," published by 

14 



Mr. Shuster, expresses the foregoing idea in the English of the 
United States: 

"I was deeply disappointed at being forcibly deprived of the 
opportunity to finish my intensely interesting task in that ancient 
land; but such rancor or bitterness as I may have felt at the time 
of my departure has certainly disappeared, and the cordial re- 
ception given me on the occasion of my visit to London, last Feb- 
ruary, and subsequently by the press and my countrymen in 
America, has so amply repaid me for any inconvenience or annoy- 
ances that I suffered during the last two months of my service at 
Teheran, that no sting whatever remains. 

Only the pen of a Macaulay or the brush of a Verestchagin 
could adequately portray the rapidly shifting scenes attending 
the downfall of this ancient nation, — scenes in which two powerful 
and presumably enlightened Christian countries played fast and 
loose with truth, honor, decency and law, one, at least, hesitating 
not even at the most barbarous cruelties to accomplish its political 
designs and to put Persia beyond hope of self-regeneration. 

In the belief that the real interests of humanity and the bet- 
terment of international relations demand the truth be told in 
cases of this kind, I have written down the facts with a bluntness 
which perhaps, under other circumstances, would be subject to 
criticism. 

The Constitutionalists of Modern Persia will not have lived, 
struggled, and in many instances, died entirely in vain, if the de- 
struction of Persian sovereignty shall have sharpened somewhat 
the civilized world's realization of the spirit of international brig- 
andage which marked the welt-politik of the year 1911." 

The governing bodies of Europe were absolutely callous to all 
ideas of right or justice, when applied to any people they intended 
to subjugate or had agreed that some other power might subju- 
gate. The following incident is illuminating. In 1911, France, 
regardless of the International Convention of Algiceras which 

15 



guaranteed the integrity of Morocco, (the United States, by the 
way, was a qualified signer of this scrap of paper), had by force 
annexed Morocco and the matter came up for discussion in the 
British House of Commons. The scene is detailed by Gilbert 
Murray in his book above referred to on pages 58-59 as follows: 

"There is another objection which, I fully agree, ought not to 
be overlooked. It raises a large question of principle. When 
Mr. Dillon, in the historic debate of November 27, 1911, remarked 
upon the fact that in all the controversy about the Moroccan 
Treaty, 'it does not seem to have occurred to any one that the 
people of Morocco have any say in the matter at all,' certain mem- 
bers of the House laughed and cried 'Hear, hear.' Yet it is cer- 
tainly not a thing to laugh at or take for granted, that, as Mr. 
Dillon proceeded to say, the future of a country should be settled 
by treaty between two foreign Powers, and that settlement de- 
fended at length without 'one sentence to indicate the smallest 
sympathy with the people to whom that country belonged.' 

There is a tragedy here, a tragedy which underlies the rela- 
tions between civilized and uncivilized nations throughout the 
globe. The history of almost every European colony shows it in 
some degree. Civilized man at his best can do great things for 
uncivilized man, especially perhaps if the difference between them 
is so great that the inferior does not seek to dispute it. But what 
the more backward nations very often receive is civilized man at 
his worst. And probably some of the direst crimes and cruelties 
that have been perpetrated in the world have occurred in those 
regions where white adventurers and speculators have been al- 
lowed to establish their supremacy over coloured races without 
the constant control of the Home Government. 

The spirit of Mr. Dillon's criticism is therefore very import- 
ant, though its exact form was perhaps hardly fair. Sir Edward 
Gray was dealing with the Morocco Question in so far as it affected 
our relations with foreign Powers, especially Germany. A plebi- 
scite of the inhabitants of Morocco had not been suggested as a 

16 



possibility by any critic, and since the policy of the British Gov- 
ernment was simply to 'disinterest itself in Morroco, it could not 
possibly be accused of maltreating the Moors. 

Neither will any reasonable person argue that Great Britian, 
herself the greatest colonizing power in the world, should object 
on principle to France or any other Power making colonies. The 
establishment of most colonies is a history written in blood, and 
largely in innocent blood. "Yet surely none but a paradox-monger 
will maintain that Australia ought to have been left to the Black- 
fellows, or North and South America to the Indian tribes? All 
that we can demand of the British Government is that within its 
own possessions it shall do its utmost to maintain the welfare of 
its own subject-races and vigilantly prevent their oppression. 
This is a difficult work, and we have sometimes failed in it. But, 
on the whole, judged by ordinary human standards, and compared 
with colonial or foreign Governments, the Home Government's 
record in this matter is admittedly good." 

Our own government, thru the accident of location, has not 
been to any great extent contaminated by the evil of foreign col- 
onial policy; we, therefore, viewed with great hope, the peace con- 
ferences held at the Hague. 

Foreign governments and statesmen held no such views. 
Read with care the following editorial of the London Times, ap- 
pearing in "The Two Hague Conferences," Joseph H. Choate, 
pages 55-56, as follows: 

"The London Times which continued at that time to be the 
great organ of British public opinion, especially on foreign affairs, 
was especially hostile to the whole performance, constantly utter- 
ing severe criticisms upon what was done or not done, and finally 
openly setting us down as largely composed of a group of second- 
class diplomatists, who were trying to see how we could best dupe 
each other. To take its own words, on the 7th of October, it said: 

17 



'They, the members, have negotiated and compromised and 
tried to dupe each other and resorted to all the little tricks and 
devices of second-class diplomacy' and, again, on the 19th of Octo- 
ber, at the close of our deliberations, it said, in plain English: 

'The Conference was a sham and has brought forth a progeny 
of shams, because it was founded on a sham. We do not believe 
that any progress whatever in the cause of peace, or in the miti- 
gation of the evils of war, can be accomplished by a repetition of the 
strange and humiliating performance which has just ended.' " 

To the same effect is the statement of that eminent Belgian, 
Henri La Fontaine, appearing in the April, 1917, Journal of tfie 
American Bar Association, page 166: 

"Is it clear now, to every sane and unprejudiced reader, that 
the diplomats gathered at The Hague in 1899 and 1907, tried 
simply to give some satisfaction to the wishes expressed by the 
peoples to humanize war and deprive it of its horrors and un- 
necessary sufferings? Perhaps some among them have been in- 
spired by the machiavelic idea that, by persuading the masses 
that war in the future could be waged with some kindliness, it 
would be more easy to induce the peoples to accept war 
as a means of settling international disputes. But they have all 
agreed in proclaiming laws of war which were not binding or 
binding only for a short time. It was sham legislation and it was 
intended to be sham legislation." 

How could it have been otherwise? France had then planned 
the conquest of Morocco; Austria-Hungary, the conquest of the 
Slavic Adriatic Provinces; Italy, the conquest of Tripoli; England 
and Russia were then dividing all of Western Asia between them; 
Germany had her own dreams of world empire. To the govern- 
ments of Europe the Hague Conferences were a farce in most par- 
ticulars. Their interest was not in international justice but in in- 
ternational injustice. 

18 



The Hague conference did not go to the root of the difficulty. 
It endeavored to organize a court, based upon a recognition of 
rights and a standard of duties which were fundamentally wrong. 
It was a house built upon sand and it was doomed to failure. 

Persia, the last of the subject nations 'which still retains the 
forms of independent government, appealed to us in March of 
this year, to save her. She is but one of many. The others 
are so far subjugated that they have no means of putting their 
supplications in form. — It is a voice crying in the wilderness. 

The seeds of future wars lie among those peoples who are 
suffering injustice, their revolt is certain. If our national con- 
science does not compel our action, our future safety requires 
that we endeavor to establish the principle that all countries and 
peoples shall be governed only with their consent. 

The peoples of Europe will be with us in our effort to 
establish the principle of self-government. The war has brought 
home to them what foreign domination means to others. The 
Belgians have suffered what they made the natives of the Congo 
suffer. A part of France has suffered the fate of Morocco. The 
English have been seized with a fear that should give them a real- 
ization of what foreign control means to India and Egypt. The 
masses of Europe will grant to their less fortunate brethren 
equality before the law and a voice in government. 

The statesmen of Europe have been educated to believe that 
national interest required them to deal with their foreig?|L colonies 
as property to be handled for the benefit of the commercial inter- 
ests of their country and that this policy should be pursued, re- 
gardless of the interests of the colonies. This education was 
contrary to their ideas of right and justice and there are many 

19 



examples of statesmen who have voiced condemnation of the sys- 
tem and by personal example have shown that its practice was 
not necessary. Probably the most prominent example was Sir 
Edward Gray; as chairman of the London conference, to settle 
the Balkan War, he demonstrated that honesty and integrity could 
be, with honor, applied to international matters. Even since the 
outbreak of the war, his impartiality as chairman has received 
recognition from prominent officials of the enemies of his country. 
They may now have reached the point where they will lay aside 
the old ideas and adopt the newer ones — that subject nationalities 
are to be governed for their benefit; that governments are but 
trustees for the less fortunate people whom they govern; that 
they cannot make a colony a closed preserve, which they can ex- 
ploit for their benefit, to the exclusion of all other countries. 
There are incidents that show the development of these ideas. 
The establishment^of the Free Trade Zone in Africa is one of them. 
The quickness with which the European governments agreed to 
the Open Door Policy in China is another. The more frequent re- 
course to arbitration is another. All these circumstances show a 
trend towards the broader view. Since the opening of the war 
there has been the stand of our President, Woodrow Wilson; the 
claims of all the governments that they were fighting for liberty; 
the principles outlined by the New Russian Government; and the 
last statement by Lloyd George, the man of the hour in England. 

"What will happen to Mesopotamia must be left to the Peace 
Congress when it meets. But there is one thing will never hap- 
pen to it. It will never be restored to the blasting tyranny of the 
Turk. At best he was the trustee of this far-famed land on behalf 
of civilization. Ah! what a trustee. He has been false to his trust, 
and the trusteeship must be given over to more competent and 
more equitable hands, chosen by the Congress which will settle 

20 



the affairs of the world . That same observation applies to Armenia, 
a land soaked with the blood of innocents massacred by the people 
who were their guardians, and who were bound to protect them, 
and as the German colonies are a matter which must be settled by 
the great international Peace Congress, let me point out that our 
critics talk as if we had annexed lands peopled by Germans, as if 
we subjected the Teutonic people to British rule. When you come 
to settle who shall be the future trustees of these uncivilized lands 
you must take into account the sentiments of the people them- 
selves. What confidence has been inspired in their untutored 
minds by the German rule of which they have had an experience? 
Whether they are anxious to secure the return of their former 
masters, or whether they would rather trust their destinies to 
other, and juster, and, may I confidently say, gentler hands than 
those who have been governing them up to the present time (is 
for them to say.) The wishes, the desires, and the interests of 
the people of these countries themselves must be the dominant 
factor in settling their future government. That is the principle 
upon which we are proceeding." — Parenthesis is added to show 
meaning. — Glasgow, June 29, 1917. 

It is but a step from the application of these principles to the 
Turk, and the German, to the application of them to England, 
France, Italy, Portugal, Russia, and the United States. If the 
natives of Mesopotamia are to express their sentiments as to their 
government, then the Egyptians should also. If the natives of the 
German colonies are to express their sentiments, then the Moors 
of Morocco should also. If the Armenians are to have a voice in 
government, then the Lybians of Tripoli should also. And so should 
all subject nationalities, including the Porto Ricans and the Phili- 
pinos. 

If the Turks and Germans are guardians, then all colonizing 
countries are guardians, and must use the ward's property for 
the benefit of the ward. The ward must have a place where it can 

21 



be heard and in case of a dishonest guardian, that guardian must 
be removed. Probably joint guardians for nations not fully 
civilized w^ill be provided by the Council. 

If the Turk is trustee over his conquered provinces, on behalf 
of all civilization, then all nations are trustees over their conquered 
provinces on behalf of all civilization, and they can taire no advan- 
tage in those provinces that they do not grant to all civilization. 

How^ very, very much, of the cause of wars between nations 
this will remove. Think back on the wars of history, take out 
those that were the revolts of oppressed peoples and those that 
were for conquest, and count those that are left. It is believed 
that your examination will show that the establishment of the 
principle of government only with the consent and for the interest 
of the governed, will nearly eliminate the causes of war. Then ask 
yourself whether it is worth while to our country to endeavor to 
remove the main cause. 

We are stepping from being a power in two continents to be- 
ing a power in the world. Our resources in men and capital will 
give us an equal voice in the councils of the world. Shall we, as 
we can, join with a limited number of other nations to enforce 
our rule, military and economic, over those not so fortunate? 
This is the history of the past and with it go the wars and crimes 
of the past. 

Or shall we use our influence to make this world a league of 
democracies where all nations, great and small, receive justice? 

The first course can be accomplished with ease and will add 
to our wealth at the expense of less fortunate peoples. 

The second course will meet with many objections, but the 
justice of it will bring to our assistance a sufficient number of the 
other Great Powers of the world to insure its recognition. 

22 



This should be our second war aim, in no sense subordinate 
to the first. 

Gradually it will become apparent to all the warring nations 
that a peace dictated by Germany and her Allies, or England and 
her Allies, will be but a temporary peace; that the separate and 
national interests of Germany and France; of Russia, Italy, and 
Austria-Hungary; of Turkey, England, the United States, Japan 
and all their Allies will receive but secondary consideration in the 
council which will reorganize the relations of all the peoples of the 
world. That all must modify and give up many of their cherished 
aims in order to secure for themselves safety from future attack 
and freedom to develop their national life, without restraint. 

When this time comes, and it will come, then peace with its 
blessings will descend upon all the warring nations. 

j3. E. d. 

"the old brick" 

Coldwater. Michigan, 
August 10, 1917. 



23 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 915 844 9 



- D>^ 



III! Wi«,^.„.9.':,. CONGRESS 



020 915 844 9 



